[Tackle] I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle Law?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

I hadn't seen this thread before...

I've always interpreted it as if the jackler has time to arrive over a player on th eground, place their hands cleanly on the ball and clearly attempt a pick up (ie. pull towards their own chest, not drive it into the tackled player's body to lock it in) then that is more than enough time for the tackled player to release and I'm looking for reasons not to PK the tackled player (no roll, holding on, was the tackle sufficiently complete when the jackler arrived - had the player actually had the time to play the ball). If there is nothing materially stopping the BC from playing it/releasing - PK. Unfortunately it can mean messy games can get pedantic so needs careful application at the start of matches to prevent me making a rod that I have to carry around for 80 minutes!

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

I understand your comment about over-reach, the Laws are overly complicated such as having options of a scrum back, kick-again or line-out for a re-start kick that goes out without bouncing. However, having said that the Tackle Law is as simple as it could be and ticks almost every box, particularly with the recent guidance, which states: apply the law!

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

Although, I am not dealing with the same public. (Mini/midi/maxi, me). Jackling isn’t really part of their skillset in this age group. But I agree with you. We had a study here on the fundamentals of why rugby as a game works. One of the points was that the tackled player had to release the ball, for player safety. Getting trampled on isn’t safe.

Folks have lost sight of the basics, obliging the tackler to release, increases the number of incomplete tackles, in a game where the BC unfairly continues crawling/rolling along the ground.

Let’s enforce current law, changes to the Law to adapt to players cheating, is not the way to go.

Last edited by L'irlandais; 07-04-20 at 20:04.

"We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

Originally Posted by Mr Danes

Tackle Law

PLAYER RESPONSIBILITIES

Tacklers must:

Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.

Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.

Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.

Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.

Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.

Sanction: Penalty.
Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.
Tackled players must immediately:

Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction.

Move away from the ball or get up.

Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.

Sanction: Penalty.

How much of this do you see happening in your games, or on televised games?

Question: Define the word immediately. If I ask 100 people I'll get 30 or so different answers to that one. For me Jarrod Button answers it in the bit underlined below. "Immediate" is a "movable feast. How long is dependent on what is happening around the scenario.

Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton

I hadn't seen this thread before...

I've always interpreted it as if the jackler has time to arrive over a player on the ground, place their hands cleanly on the ball and clearly attempt a pick up (ie. pull towards their own chest, not drive it into the tackled player's body to lock it in) then that is more than enough time for the tackled player to release and I'm looking for reasons not to PK the tackled player (no roll, holding on, was the tackle sufficiently complete when the jackler arrived -had the player actually had the time to play the ball). If there is nothing materially stopping the BC from playing it/releasing - PK. Unfortunately it can mean messy games can get pedantic so needs careful application at the start of matches to prevent me making a rod that I have to carry around for 80 minutes!

Indeed (the bit in bold) Australia, in particular, but not exclusively, had two flankers who were extremely adept at winning turnovers close to the opposition line (giving scoring opportunities) but near their own line they cleverly held on to the ball to the ball carrier thus getting penalties allowing their team to kick to touch gaining ground with possession 30 / 40 / 50 metres upfield.
Often it is a bit of both. The BC is holding but the Jackler is trying to win the Penalty and not the ball.

Originally Posted by Arabcheif

There's a lot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

Se the comment about the Aussie flankers. Not everything is done with pure intentions. If you are milking the PK you will not survive the clear-out

Furthermore, jackling is not that productive a tactic. A few seasons ago the then coach of Bristol came to our society to give a talk on forward play. He told a story about the then Bristol openside who was, according to the player, one of the best jacklers in the Championship. Whilst not disagreeing with the basic point, the coach produced the stats from the season. YES, the 7 was at the top of the Bristol list of jacklers. However, his success rate was negligible. This we were told was pretty consistent across the game. Coach wanted the player to time the jackel. Use it as a selective weapon when it was more likely to be successful and effective.

The point being, to suggest: "Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities." is perhaps a tad naive.

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

Originally Posted by Mr Danes

I understand your comment about over-reach, the Laws are overly complicated such as having options of a scrum back, kick-again or line-out for a re-start kick that goes out without bouncing. However, having said that the Tackle Law is as simple as it could be and ticks almost every box, particularly with the recent guidance, which states: apply the law!

The tackle is one of the most dynamic phases of the game. A lot is going on. The words (the law) are easy to read in your living room with a coffee in your hand and chocolate digestive ready to dunk. In the heat of a game, after a 30 yard sprint and with players partly blocking your view, some "possibly cheating" it's a different animal.

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham

Furthermore, jackling is not that productive a tactic. A few seasons ago the then coach of Bristol came to our society to give a talk on forward play. He told a story about the then Bristol openside who was, according to the player, one of the best jacklers in the Championship. Whilst not disagreeing with the basic point, the coach produced the stats from the season. YES, the 7 was at the top of the Bristol list of jacklers. However, his success rate was negligible. This we were told was pretty consistent across the game. Coach wanted the player to time the jackel. Use it as a selective weapon when it was more likely to be successful and effective.

I guess the crux is "define successfull" - if (that coach?) means actually win the ball Id agree - the majority of attempts clearly fail otherwise wed have turnover cointsantly. However - add/replace that with "win a PK" then its possibly slightly higher as a successful tactic. Define it as "slow down the delivery" then the stats probablyt get qiuite high, even if only by a second or two.

Whatever it is - watch any game at any level and somebody jackles at pretty much any tackle they can get close enough to. The coach's thouhgts are very interestin through - thanks for the "anecdote" Marc.

Re: I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle L

Originally Posted by Arabcheif

There's alot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

Having your hands on the ball at the tackle/ruck is not equal to having control or the ability to take possession of the ball. BC team infringements aside, if you aren't actively attempting to take possession of the ball as a jackler IMO you have no rights to the ball (in much the same way that if you refuse to jump at the oppo LO, I'm going to be a bit more lenient to the throwing hooker). It is similar to us turning a blind eye to the BC holding on to the ball briefly until the initial tackle momentum/movement has settled down before placing it, if we were asking for immediate release on hitting the ground, there would be so many scrums for lost forward that even the FR would be sick of cuddle time.